Relativity And Simple Algebra

[OceanBreeze]

You don't understand the context of my statement. The meaning is if Alice ends up permanently 2 years younger that Bob at reunion, you can also state that as Bob being 2 years older than Alice. I also said Bob's age at reunion is 8 and Alice is 4 if she returns at c,so how am I going to use some math trick to prove he's actually 12 and she's 8. I can but the math has no physical connection to reality so I'm dropping it. Is this clarification enough for you because you have a history of ignoring everything that is outside of what you've already decided upon as fact.

 

Who you talking to; voices in your head? Anyway, the formulas for length contraction and time dilation only apply to objects moving at less than light speed, not to light itself, or anything imagined to be moving at c.

 

WTF am I doing; posting in this thread? :shocked:

[ralfcis]

This post may be skipped.

 

Great video explaining what crank relativists believe when ignoring perspective.

 

10. The B theory of time is relativity. The A theory is plain wrong according to relativists.

9. Inside a black hole, time stops just like for a travelling photon. When time stops from your perspective, you are everywhere in the universe instantaneously according to relativity. Outside in 0 gravity "it moves at a much faster speed" which she neglects to say is c (time ticking at the normal rate). "The higher you are the faster you experience time". Wrong, you always experience time at the same rate, your rate of time changes according to others perspective of you. You would not be 90 billionths of a second older, wrong,  they will have aged less than you by that amount. GPS is not regularly corrected for relativistic effects.Typical sloppy crank wording that has everyone brainwashed. 

8. Is unfortunately correct which to me proves relativistic assumptions fundamentally flaw the math.

7. There are two different viewpoints of time as a 4th dimension. One is relativity's where you just add time as another space axis. Space is then 3 dimensional slices which we move through using time's as a 4th direction. The other idea is time is not another space axis but an over riding dimension that permeates the other 3. Time is separate and does not behave as a 4th space axis.

 

PS. Hold on, I'm changing my opinion on whether the black hole experience is the same as the photon experience. The photon is moving relative to space so relativity says it is everywhere instantaneously from the photon's perspective. But a black hole is relatively sedentary so you would not be everywhere. Also time would seem stopped for you from an outside observer (but not stopped from your perspective) if it was possible for an observer to see you. (Another thought experiment Popeye so don't pop a head gasket). However time would not be observed from inside a black hole to be instantaneously passing for the outside universe. It would appear at the fastest rate of time possible which is c or the normal rate of time.

Edited December 18, 2019 by ralfcis

[ralfcis]

Ok back to some constructive learning. As you may remember, we're exploring the possibility of establishing a proper present based on the universal clock tick rate of proper time for all frames. 

 

 http://www.sciencechatforum.com/download/file.php?id=6056&mode=view

 

Here is a graph (yes a graph is  math) illustrating the differences between a Loedel and Minkowski STD depicting a relative velocity of .6c.  The Loedel is comprised of two 1/3 c (relativistically adding up to .6c between the two parties) blue lines relative to the earth background frame while the equivalent Minkowski is  a .6c red line relative to a 0c red line which is also the earth background frame. There is no way to draw an STD without using a common background frame  of Cartesian coordinates. The loedel allows us to depict neither Bob nor Alice as stationary and the mathematical results must be identical to the Minkowski depiction. Neither depiction represents reality as in the Loedel, the two parties end up at different points in space than the Minkowski depiction although they must end up the same distance apart for the same time duration. It will take some work to accurately compare apples to apples here. 

 

You'll also notice pink and yellow and hyperbolic lines. The hyperbolics join the same proper time for all velocity curves depicted. These lines are the simultaneity of proper time.The pink lines are light signals from Alice to Bob and the yellow are from Bob to Alice. In an ideal depiction, they would represent c as 1 distance unit per 1 time unit but, surprise, surprise, they don't. They may all be the same slope but they're all of different length and travel different distances and durartions of time in the Minlowski depiction. They travel the same duration of space and time in the Loedel but both the Minkowski and Loedel should be depicting relative velocity between the parties  with identical results but this is not happening. We have to make it happen in order to get the same results of light travel time in order to use light signals to determine Bob and Alice's true relative ages wrt proper time. Proper time, as you may remember is not subject to perspective.

 

It appears the light distance and time is affected by how the velocity lines are depicted  and this needs to be purged out. You can see this if you drew a vertical 0c line at the 2 ly mark. Light would travel in both directions at 1 ly per yr and take 2 yrs to travel 2 ly. The pink and yellow lines of the Loedel depiction each take 2.1 yrs to travel 2.1 ly but the Minkowski pink travels 1.5 ly in 1.5 yr while the yellow travels 3 ly in 3 yrs. Lines of simultaneity from each perspective and the doppler shift ratio must be employed to correct this imbalance.

Edited December 18, 2019 by ralfcis

[marcospolo]

Inverse, why do you have "e=m.c2 is wrong' as a tag line? Please explain.

[inverse]

Inverse, why do you have "e=m.c2 is wrong' as a tag line? Please explain.

 

we do not explain until some of our papers be published on this issue. 

 

after publication,it will be possible to copy paste the link to here for reason.

 

Regards

Edited February 17, 2019 by inverse

[ralfcis]

What's interesting about the video above is how the human brain automatically redacts information it can't absorb into its narrative. This is why a huge percentage of my sentences don't make it into most people's heads. But the brain does not reject entire sentences. It highlights words in those sentences that it recognizes and uses them to create its own narrative of what it's reading. An example of this is when Moronium's brain recognized the word "relative" and seized on relativity's definition of it instead of the English definition I was using. 

 

Now where am I going with this? The problem I've presented on how to correctly use the light signals to establish Bob and Alice's real ages is mathematically solved differently in relativity. The rotation of the x'-axis in the opposite direction of the ct'-axis ends up creating the concept of length contraction and subsequently moving perspective simultaneity (which is the same thing as relativity's x'-axis). Einstein's innocuous clock sync method becomes the starting assumption of the derivation of the Lorentz transform equations. Einstein could have just as easily started from those equations and concluded he's discovered a new way to sync clocks.They didn't even have atoms in those days let alone atomic clocks but if they had I doubt anyone would have used Einstein's clock sync method and so Lorentz  transform equations would probably never have been in the form they're in. The Lorentz transforms deal with time dilation, length contraction and relativity of simultaneity which all arise out of the construct of perspective time and Einstein's clock sync method. That's what this thread is about, deriving relativity without any of the hidden assumptions of relativity. Don't worry I'll soon get back to how I get rid of the contradictions in the light signals so I could use them to tell time properly.

 

Now I assume no one understands math here other than maybe at a superficial level and redacts out the parts where relativity is slipping a mickey into its math, but here's a set of videos explaining relativity's mathematical evolution. Try to spot the slight of hand while its occurring.

 

 

There are 71 videos in this lecture series and for anyone who is interested in being able to parrot relativity without the bother of actually understanding it, this is the course for you. It ignores any of the messy contradictions of relativity and will make you sound very learned at your next dinner party with a glass wine and a pipe in your hand or if you're out on your yacht with the ocean breeze in your hair thinking how grand you are.

 

I've opened up a new thread to discuss the course. 

Edited December 19, 2019 by ralfcis

[Moronium]

Hey, Ralf.  I watched that first video, which ends with the question "is the speed of light really constant."  I'm assuming he addresses that question in his next lesson.  I'd like to see it, but can't seem to find it on youtube.  Can you post a link to it?

Edited February 17, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Well, thanks for that, but I can't figure out which one would logically follow his first.

 

I'm left hanging on a cliff by him.

 

The first video keeps saying IF light speed is constant, then....

 

It is only at the end that he asks the question "But is the speed of light really constant?"

 

He gives the impression that he has an answer to that question, but he doesn't give it.

 

I would be quite curious to know what his answer is.

 

My answer would be this:  In the context of a scientific theory, it is not a question that can be answered.  It's really not even one that can be asked.  It is an unproven assertion, a "postulate."  As such, it is not presented as a fact, only as a hypothesis.  Within the theory, you can never prove the postulate.  It can be disproven by experiment, but never proven, even with 10 million experiments.

 

I do notice, however, that in later videos he treats it as a fact.  He says things like "As we have learned, the speed of light is constant."

Edited February 17, 2019 by Moronium

[Moronium]

OK, I think I found it.  I haven't view it yet, but this must be it:

 

[ralfcis]

In another thread I can see there is some terrible confusion of what "relative velocity" means. I need to clear this up here because no one will understand the discussion on the propagation of light signals. Let's do some examples:

 

1. If Bob throws a football at 15mph, what is Bob's relative velocity to the football? 15 mph. If Bob is running at 15 mph while throwing the football at 15 mph, what is his relative velocity to the football? 15 mph.

 

2. If Bob and Harry are playing catch and Bob throws a football to Harry at 15 mph, what is Harry's relative velocity to the football? 15 mph. If Bob is running toward Harry at 15 mph (relative to  Harry) while throwing the Football  to Harry at 15mph, what is Harry's relative velocity to the football. 30 mph. If Bob is stationary and Harry runs towards him when Bob passes the football at 15 mph,  what is Harry's relative velocity to the football. 30 mph.

 

3. If sound only travelled at 15 mph  and Bob yelled at Harry at the same time he was passing him the football and both weren't running, which would Harry catch first, the yell or the football? Both would be simultaneous. If a wind was blowing at 15 mph at Harry's back, he would never hear the yell from Bob. If Bob was running toward Harry and passing the football (no wind this time) at 15 mph, Bob would hear his initial yell the entire trip to Harry.

 

Bob and his yell would have 0 relative velocity but Bob and his football would have 15 mph relative velocity. Bob's velocity did not push the sound any faster while it did push the football.  Sound's velocity is relative to the medium and Bob or Harry's relative velocity  to sound must first be calculated from their relative velocity to the medium. 

 

Harry's velocity toward the sound or the football will yield a relative velocity to those of 30 mph. Bob's velocity, throwing sound to a stationary Harry, will not add to Harry's relative velocity to the sound but it will add to Harry's relative velocity to a thrown football.

 

4. Now let's say the max relative velocity anything could travel was limited to 15 mph. Bob's relative velocity to either a football or to the sound he throws should be unaffected as the velocities do not combine above 15 mph relative velocity. But this doesn't happen in relativity. Bob would not be able to keep up with his yell if he tried to run with it at 15mph. The relative velocity between him and his yell would be 15mph and not zero.

 

If Bob yelled while running to Harry, his yell would not be pushed towards Harry any faster so the speed limit law would not affect the example above. But if Harry was running towards Bob, who was either running or stationary, Harry's velocity relative to the football or sound could not exceed 15 mph. It could not be 30 mph as in the example above. 

 

These strange results are not totally happening as the result of an arbitrary speed limit but because Bob nor Harry can establish a relative velocity to the electromagnetic medium as the Michelson Morley experiment proved. Yes relativity postulates the relative speed of the football is limited by the arbitrary speed limit the same way as light would be limited by its self-propagation through its electromagnetic medium. But let's leave that aside as this is way outside normal physics. Solid objects are not normally subject to the physics of waves.

 

These next two paragraphs sounded right at the time but the real story is far more complicated so ignore what I said here:

 

Let's concentrate on Bob's yell and how it's limited by Bob's and Harry's inability to move in relation to the medium and thereby move in relation to the sound wave. Bob and Harry can still register velocities relative to each other (not in a normal additive way though) but Bob can neither push or catch up to his yell because he can't register a relative velocity to the medium through which the wave propagates. Harry can't get to Bob's yell any faster because he is also incapable of registering a relative velocity to the medium. There's also no wind that can push the medium. Relativity's explanation for this breach in the normal understanding of relative velocity is time and space must bend.

 

 If you can never catch up with a light wave or can't get to it any faster, you might as well be standing still. And this is what you're actually doing in your own frame. Even if you feel the absolute motion of acceleration (or gravity) you're still standing still. I find it far easier to understand we are always going at a combined velocity of c.The faster we're observed to move through space, the slower we're observed to move through time. This is how we preserve causality, get around the max speed limit and reach a light wave faster than if we were standing still.

Edited December 18, 2019 by ralfcis

[sluggo]

I thought you said you were smart?

Its not mathematically or geometrically or musically possible that the axis labled "ct" is a distance axis.

 

A grade school child knows speed x time = distance!

[ralfcis]

Does anyone agree with what I said about relative velocity?

[Moronium]

Does anyone agree with what I said about relative velocity?

 

No.  Not even close.  Study up on the difference between relative velocity and absolute velocity, eh?  Kinda ironic that you're always the one saying that others don't understand the proper definition, eh, Ralf?

Edited February 18, 2019 by Moronium

[marcospolo]

A grade school child knows speed x time = distance!

everyone know that. 

What I'm saying is that you are making a fatal mistake to TRY to use a distance in the vertical axis, it the horizontal axis is already a distance axis.

 

With both axies being distance axies,  you no longer have a GRAPH, you don't have any vectors that represent velocity.

 

What you do have now is just a ordinary 2D map of Cartesian coordinates.

 

It is a MAP, showing locations ONLY, its can't show speed vectors,  any lines would represent ROADS traveled on. 

 

any school child KNOWS that!

 

Your ideas are therefore WRONG. 

Please admit that fact, and lets move on to something more interesting that has SOME chance of being real.

Edited February 18, 2019 by marcospolo

[ralfcis]

Ok M, what's my 1st mistake, I need a good laugh.

[Moronium]

Ok M, what's my 1st mistake, I need a good laugh.

 

 

That would be difficult to specify, eh, Ralf?  That exposition is so screwed up that it's not even wrong.

[marcospolo]

Ok M, what's my 1st mistake, I need a good laugh.

Your mistake, well, I just explained it in simple terms in post #53

 

your "graph, plot, is NOT valid.  Its a MAP of locations, has nothing whatsoever to do with velocity of anything.

 

What you need if you wish to discuss velocity, and have dimensions and times, is a real PLOT on graph paper, that has vectors representing Velocity.  Such plots MUST have a distance axis, and a perpendicular time axis.

 

You do not have that now. so every conclusion you have made is wrong.

 

Any part of that you cant grasp with your unique powers of understanding?

 

(a possible way out of your problem, is if you realize that 'ct' is a fudge, a lie, a trick of deceptive people who will stop at nothing to prove that they are right. IF you realize that the axis labeled "ct" is NOT a distance axis, but a time axis, then why did they label it as ct?  Well because labeled ct, then could use those two terms in their math, to come up with their fudged results.

 

If you relabel 'ct' as just 'd' than ALL of SR algebra disappears down the drain, where it belongs.

I've challenged you to do the math with 'd' instead of 'ct' before, and you choose to just skip it.

 

BUT using 'd' is still not correct, because the vertical axis can ONLY be a TIME axis.

 

Really if you cant see this, then you are incapable of doing Physics or Math.

Edited February 18, 2019 by marcospolo